Court : US Supreme Court
United States v. Holliday - 70 U.S. 407 (1865) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Holliday, 70 U.S. 3 Wall. 407 407 (1865) United States v. Holliday 70 U.S. (3 Wall.) 407 ON CERTIFICATE OF DIVISION OF OPINION AMONG THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN Syllabus 1. The 12th section of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which gives to the circuit courts concurrent jurisdiction of all crimes and offenses cognizable in the district courts, is prospective, and embraces all offenses the jurisdiction of which is vested in the district courts by subsequent statutes. 2. Therefore the circuit courts have jurisdiction of the offense of selling ardent spirits to an Indian, under the Act of February 12, 1862, although by that act the jurisdiction is vested only in the district court. 3. By that act Congress intended to make it penal to sell spirituous liquor to an Indian under charge of an Indian agent, although it was sold outside of any Indian reservation and wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ex parte Milligan - 71 U.S. 2 (1866) U.S. Supreme Court Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 4 Wall. 2 2 (1866) Ex parte Milligan 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 Syllabus 1. Circuit Courts, as well as the judges thereof, are authorized, by the fourteenth section of the Judiciary Act, to issue the writ of habeas corpus for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of commitment, and they have Page 71 U. S. 3 jurisdiction, except in cases where the privilege of the writ is suspended, to hear and determine the question whether the party is entitled to be discharged. 2. The usual course of proceeding is for the court, on the application of the prisoner for a writ of habeas corpus, to issue the writ, and, on its return, to hear and dispose of the case; but where the cause of imprisonment is fully shown by the petition, the court may, without issuing the writ, consider and determine whether, upon the facts presented in the petition, the prisoner, if brought before the court, would be discharged. 3. When ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Henderson's Tobacco - 78 U.S. 652 (1870) U.S. Supreme Court Henderson's Tobacco, 78 U.S. 11 Wall. 652 652 (1870) Henderson's Tobacco 78 U.S. 652 I N ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IOWA Syllabus 1. Although a former statute is impliedly repealed by a subsequent one plainly repugnant to it or so far as the later statute's' making new provisions is plainly intended for a substitute for the earlier one, yet a repeal is not to be implied where the powers or directions under the later acts are such as may well subsist together with those under the earlier. 2. Held, on an application of this principle, that the Act of July 20, 1868, Page 78 U. S. 653 imposing taxes on distilled spirits and tobacco, did not repeal the proviso to the 25th section of the Internal Revenue Act of March 2, 1867, which limits to twenty days the time for commencing proceedings to enforce forfeitures. 3. But the proviso has no application to any other forfeitures than such as are provid...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Blyew v. United States - 80 U.S. 581 (1871) U.S. Supreme Court Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. 13 Wall. 581 581 (1871) Blyew v. United States 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 581 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Syllabus Under the act of 9th April, 1866, 14 Stat. at Large 27, sometimes called "The Civil Rights Bill," which gives jurisdiction to the circuit court of all causes, civil and criminal, affecting persons who are denied or cannot enforce in the courts of the state or locality where they may be, any of the rights given by the act (among which is the right to give evidence, and to have full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of person and property as is enjoyed by white citizens), a criminal prosecution is not to be considered as "affecting" mere witnesses in the case, nor any person not in existence. United States v. Ortega, 11 Wheat. 467, affirmed. By the Revised Statutes of Kentucky, published A.D. 1860, [ Footnote 1 ] it is ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Allen v. United States - 84 U.S. 207 (1872) U.S. Supreme Court Allen v. United States, 84 U.S. 17 Wall. 207 207 (1872) Allen v. United States 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 207 APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS Syllabus 1. A demand by the United States for the proceeds of Indian trust bonds, unlawfully converted to their own use by persons who had illegally procured and sold them and had afterwards become wholly insolvent, is a demand arising upon an implied contract, or one which may be so treated by a waiver of the alleged fraud in the conversion of the bonds. 2. It is therefore the proper subject of setoff by the United States to a demand made by the general assignees in insolvency of the parties who had thus converted the bonds to their own use, for the price of certain property formerly belonging to the insolvents, and by their said general assignees sold to the United States. 3. The amount of the proceeds of the bonds, though not determined by judicial proceedings, was sufficiently ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Holden v. Joy - 84 U.S. 211 (1872) U.S. Supreme Court Holden v. Joy, 84 U.S. 17 Wall. 211 211 (1872) Holden v. Joy 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 211 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS Syllabus 1. The treaty of the 29th December, 1835, between the United States and the Cherokee Indians, was not made in virtue of the act of 28th of May, 1830, authorizing an "exchange" of lands west of the Mississippi for the territory claimed or occupied by any tribe of Indians within the limits of any state or territory, but was made under the treatymaking power vested by the Constitution in the President and Senate. 2. The Indian tribes are capable of taking as owners in fee simple lands by purchase where the United States in form, and for a valuable and adequate consideration, so sell them to them. 3. Such sale is properly made by a treaty. 4. The above-mentioned Treaty of 29 December, 1835, made such a sale to the Cherokee Indians of the lands west of the Mississippi, known as ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Slaughterhouse Cases - 83 U.S. 36 (1872) U.S. Supreme Court Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 16 Wall. 36 36 (1872) Slaughterhouse Cases * 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36 ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA 1. The legislature of Louisiana, on the 8th of March, 1869, passed an act granting to a corporation, created by it, the exclusive right, for twenty-five years, to have and maintain slaughterhouses, landings for cattle, and yards for inclosing cattle intended for sale or slaughter within the parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, and St. Bernard, in that State (a territory which, it was said -- see infra, p. 83 U. S. 85 -- contained 1154 square miles, including the city of New Orleans, and a population of between two and three hundred thousand people), and prohibiting all other persons from building, keeping, or having slaughterhouses, landings for cattle, and yards for cattle intended for sale or slaughter, within those limits, and requiring that all cattle and other animals intended for...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Railroad Company v. Fuller - 84 U.S. 560 (1873) U.S. Supreme Court Railroad Company v. Fuller, 84 U.S. 17 Wall. 560 560 (1873) Railroad Company v. Fuller 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 560 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IOWA Syllabus A state legislature passed in 1862 an act "in relation to the duties of railroad companies," enacting: 1st. That each railroad company should annually, in a month named by the act, fix its rates for the transportation of passengers and of freights of different kinds; 2d. That it should, on the first day of the next month, cause a printed copy of such rates to be put up at all its stations and depots, and cause a copy to remain posted during the year; 3d. That a failure to fulfill these requirements, or the charging of a higher rate than was posted, should subject the offending company to the payment of certain penalties prescribed. Congress, afterwards (in 1866), by an act whose title was "An act to facilitate commercial, postal, and mil...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Ex Parte Atocha - 84 U.S. 439 (1873) U.S. Supreme Court Ex Parte Atocha, 84 U.S. 17 Wall. 439 439 (1873) Ex Parte Atocha 84 U.S. (17 Wall.) 439 PETITION AND MOTION FOR MANDAMUS Syllabus Claims under treaty stipulations are excluded from the general jurisdiction of the Court of Claims conferred by the acts of Congress of February 24, 1815, and March 3, 1863, and when jurisdiction over such claims is conferred by special act, the authority of that court to hear and determine them, and of this Court to review its action, is limited and controlled by the provisions of that act. Page 84 U. S. 440 2. An act of Congress passed on the 14th of February, 1865, "for the relief of Alexander J. Atocha" directed the Court of Claims to examine into his claim against the government of Mexico for losses sustained by him by reason of his expulsion from that country in 1845, and provided that if the court was of opinion that the claim was a just one against Mexico when the treaty of 1848 was r...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
McPhaul v. Lapsley - 87 U.S. 264 (1873) U.S. Supreme Court McPhaul v. Lapsley, 87 U.S. 20 Wall. 264 264 (1873) McPhaul v. Lapsley 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 264 ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Syllabus 1. An affidavit filed under the Act of the Legislature of Texas approved May 13, 1846 -- requiring an affidavit as to the fraudulent character of an instrument of writing, properly recorded and filed among the papers of the cause, the purpose of requiring the affidavit being to relieve the party meaning to offer the instrument introduced from the burden, after be has filed it among the papers in the cause, of proving its execution unless the other side swear that it is a forgery -- is properly rejected when not filed within the time prescribed by the act. 2. A testimonio executed, in 1832, by the proper Mexican authorities, of a power of attorney for the conveyance of lands is within the recording acts of Texas. 3. Such a testimonio, under Spanish law and ...
Tag this Judgment!